Tuesday, January 20, 2004

For that reason, he explained, "The bandanna, if it is presented by young girls as a religious sign, will be forbidden."

He also contended that hairstyles or the wearing of certain colors could be a source of manipulation. "Signs could be invented using simple hairiness or a color," he said. "Creativity is infinite in this regard."

In his testimony, Xavier Darcos, the deputy minister, agreed. "It's a question of our will to produce a clear, useful and general text that avoids diverse precedents and individual improvisation," he said. "It was quite necessary to act and not to restrain religious freedom."

Apparently, French admit seeking to restrict creativity but not religious freedom. I am not sure which one is worse -- their lying about a ban on religious symbols not infringing on religious freedom or their truth on seeking to restrict creativity in its any form, even simple hairiness.

On a separate note, I appreciate the use of word "hairiness" in a major policy statement. Much like Elivs and pelvis, "simple hairiness" is a threat to order, stability, and the fatherland.